Relationships among Eysenck's Extraversion, Rorschach's Erlebnistypus, and Tolerance of Experimental Tonic Pain (Cold Water Pressor Test)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a group of 42 healthy volunteers the correlations between the concept of Extraversion-Introversion as defined by Eysenck and Erlebnistypus as defined by Rorschach were analysed to relate these with the tolerance of an experimentally induced tonic pain. We conducted an experimental procedure comprising a test and retest. At test the subjects were administered the Rorschach, the Eysenck Personality Inventory, the Cold Water Pressor Test, a nongraduated Visual Analogue Scale, and the Italian version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. At retest the experimental induction of pain was measured again. At test subjects who scored higher on the EPI Extraversion scale tolerated pain longer and did not modify their performance at retest. Also, the concepts of Extroversion defined by the Rorschach test and by the Extraversion scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory shared some psychophysiological features of higher tolerance to pain. These personality features did not influence how subjects qualitatively describe the immediate painful experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".